Venezuela off the rails

[HoonDing]

The way I see it is that it is none of our business of what goes on inside another country. Unless they are seeking to threaten the United States, and the lives of our citizenry on our soil, we should just leave them alone and let them live as they want. If the people don't want Chaves in power they can take him out if they really try. Their country, their responsibility. Not our problem.

After Mr President comes up with some fake evidence that the country is in danger of being attacked, Mr President should send Liberty Prime to mop up those liberal commies.

[Monte Carlo]

Lord of Flies, you can try banal Fisking as much as you like, but you are still issuing an apologia for totalitarianism.

 

Meanwhile, I now eagerly await your robust defence of Kim Jong Il, the much-misunderstood redistributionist of North Korea, currently harrassed by the running lapdogs of Neo-Conservatism.

[Rostere]

Oookay. North Korea and Venezuela are two entirely different things . I do not mean to say that Venezuela is a extraordinarily free country to live in, but Venezuela is (so far) at least a functioning democracy while North Korea is an entire different business. As to why Chavez retains his power - well, we'll see what happens if the oil prices go down, I think it will be easier to draw conclusions then.

 

Suffice to say that most people on these boards come from relatively well-to-do countries, and we would perhaps have a hard time imagining what it would be like if we lived in a poor country full of oil that suddenly diverted large parts of the state budget to helping the lower classes and hiring people to state-owned companies. It is not hard to comprehend that Chavez through these actions have gained a very large group of votes, more than enough to vote him to power again and again. The interesting question is of course what will happen when Chavez can no longer afford this, and if he can relinquish his power (and/ or reform his programmes) if things go bananas. In such a situation, will Venezuela have gained something from his time in power or not?

[Monte Carlo]

^ As far as I'm concerned Chavez is on the same continuum. He's currently at the slightly warm and fuzzy adopt-absolute-power-and-attack-free-media phase of his left-wing authoritarianism. That's sort of phase one. Just watch, there will be secret police vans rocking up in the middle of the night any time soon. He doesn't need nukes, he can just play with the on / off switch on the oil pipelines instead.

 

Funny, when you think about it, that the only genuinely authoritarian states left (Middle Eastern theocracies notwithstanding) are Commie throwbacks like Belarus, Zimbabwe and Venezeula. And the liberal-left fellow travellers and useful idiots in the West can't really bring themselves to admit that their bien pensant views actually support dictators, or those on the early stages of that journey.

 

Cheers

MC

[Meshugger]

As i said, leave Venezuela be. If she wants to trade, then trade. If Venezuela nationalizes all banks and coorperations, then most likely, the trade will be hindered or halted completely. Subsequently, Venezuela will collapse under its own system, but the world will continue its support by open trade.

 

After all, no pure socialist country (a social democracy is a whole different matter) will prevail in the long run, because Chavez has forgotten a simple truth: People like to own things.

Wrong. People like luxury. While traditionally, luxury is associated with ownership and economic freedom, it doesn't have to be. For example, the Roman gladiators often had wonderful lives, got to have lots of sex, et cetera, but it was basically a gilded cage. And yet, the system functioned and survived for quite some time. If people like to own things, how come they don't like to own Enron stocks, eh? Puzzle that one out.

 

Neither you or me can define what the other person want, whether they be material or not. One mans trash, another mans treasure, as they say. In a socialist wetdream utopia, as such as Chavez wants to create, the state(the people) owns everything, and everything is somewhat evenly distributed among the population. Thus, the economy centrally planned.

 

However, this will never work because the state can never deem how much bread johnny can buy or eat, only Johnny himself knows that. Likewise, only Jack knows how he would like to start a business according to his own ideas, not the state. That's why socialist, or centralplanned economies, fail in the end. When everybody owns a little bit of everything, no matter if they earned it or not, then there's no responsibility and stagnation ensues in the long run. If everybody has to work to earn something, then they take responsibility for their earnings, thus progress ensues in the long.

 

Bear in mind, it usually isn't one or the other solution, but i much rather have it going in a direction that awards the entrepreneur.

 

Enron was a bad example, since neither you or me can determ what people should own.

[Walsingham]

I think Lord of the Flies is being medacious when he says that it's the people causing the trouble. If 'the people' attack independent media then what are the cops not doing about it? It sounds like the Gordon Brown defence of saying that everything but him is the problem.

 

I am, however, increasingly swayed by the notion that there has to be a limited acceptance for rough edges before any new system beds down. If I condemn a socialist Venezuela then what can I say when the democratically elected government of Iraq gets a bit squirrely, as it does?

 

On the other hand, we have to also have some cutoff point for bedding down. Zimbabwe and North Korea have escaped their honeymoon period by a few eeks, I think.

[lord of flies]

I think Lord of the Flies is being medacious when he says that it's the people causing the trouble. If 'the people' attack independent media then what are the cops not doing about it? It sounds like the Gordon Brown defence of saying that everything but him is the problem.

Don't make me get all tu quoque up in here.

[Walsingham]

I think Lord of the Flies is being medacious when he says that it's the people causing the trouble. If 'the people' attack independent media then what are the cops not doing about it? It sounds like the Gordon Brown defence of saying that everything but him is the problem.

Don't make me get all tu quoque up in here.

 

I had to look that up, and yes, you bloody well better.

[lord of flies]

I think Lord of the Flies is being medacious when he says that it's the people causing the trouble. If 'the people' attack independent media then what are the cops not doing about it? It sounds like the Gordon Brown defence of saying that everything but him is the problem.

Don't make me get all tu quoque up in here.

 

I had to look that up, and yes, you bloody well better.

Jury nullification during the civil rights movement in the USA was within our lifetimes. Endemic corruption, indifference to justice, and more-or-less open racism were the order of the day. If you killed a black man in the south, the police wouldn't look for you, the locals wouldn't hate you, and the jury wouldn't convict you. Edited May 28, 2009 by lord of flies

[Humodour]

I think Lord of the Flies is being medacious when he says that it's the people causing the trouble. If 'the people' attack independent media then what are the cops not doing about it? It sounds like the Gordon Brown defence of saying that everything but him is the problem.

Don't make me get all tu quoque up in here.

 

I had to look that up, and yes, you bloody well better.

Voter nullification during the civil rights movement in the USA was within our lifetimes. Endemic corruption, indifference to justice, and more-or-less open racism were the order of the day. If you killed a black man in the south, the police wouldn't look for you, the locals wouldn't hate you, and the jury wouldn't convict you.

 

Yes, you can read about that in history books or on Wikipedia.

 

And...?

[lord of flies]

I think Lord of the Flies is being medacious when he says that it's the people causing the trouble. If 'the people' attack independent media then what are the cops not doing about it? It sounds like the Gordon Brown defence of saying that everything but him is the problem.

Don't make me get all tu quoque up in here.

 

I had to look that up, and yes, you bloody well better.

Voter nullification during the civil rights movement in the USA was within our lifetimes. Endemic corruption, indifference to justice, and more-or-less open racism were the order of the day. If you killed a black man in the south, the police wouldn't look for you, the locals wouldn't hate you, and the jury wouldn't convict you.

 

Yes, you can read about that in history books or on Wikipedia.

 

And...?

And you can read about what is happening in Venezuela in history books or on Wikipedia. BOOM.

[Humodour]

No, it's not in history books yet and Wikipedia also covers current affairs. Do you have any more juvenile posts to throw at me or will you answer my question: What point were you trying to make with that post?

[lord of flies]

No, it's not in history books yet and Wikipedia also covers current affairs. Do you have any more juvenile posts to throw at me or will you answer my question: What point were you trying to make with that post?

"You too."

 

Remember when Germany censored literally every swastika? Oh no, failed state!

[Walsingham]

Jury nullification during the civil rights movement in the USA was within our lifetimes. Endemic corruption, indifference to justice, and more-or-less open racism were the order of the day. If you killed a black man in the south, the police wouldn't look for you, the locals wouldn't hate you, and the jury wouldn't convict you.

 

And? Have I ever suggested that Southern States were in any way healthy during that period? Is it a coincidence that Mississippi Goddamn is one of my favourite songs?

 

You should be both flattered and (hopefully) insulted that I was expecting better. This is a poor rejoinder.

[Humodour]

No, it's not in history books yet and Wikipedia also covers current affairs. Do you have any more juvenile posts to throw at me or will you answer my question: What point were you trying to make with that post?

"You too."

 

 

Remember when Germany censored literally every swastika? Oh no, failed state!

 

No modern state is as free as I'd like, though I actually don't include restrictions on hate speech as one of the frightening incursions on free speech as some people do. But more to the point: Germany doesn't see law after law imposing more and more authoritarian measures each time. Although perhaps with the recent ban on paintball one might beg to differ.

 

Either way, what the flying feck is your point, if you even have one? Still waiting.

[lord of flies]

Either way, what the flying feck is your point, if you even have one? Still waiting.

My point is, as I said, "tu quoque," "you too," "nobody's perfect."

 

This is you: "Oh no, some the police pay more attention to attacks on state-run businesses than ones on private businesses? Say it ain't so!"

 

Fine, did a bit more searching rather than half-heartedly pulling one of the most notable cases of corruption in policework to find a bit about freedom of the press... Freedom of the Press is so great in the United States, right?

[Walsingham]

Yes. Fine. Nobody's perfect. But there is a gradient, mon amis. Perpetuating a system of social structure where wealth governs loyalty, and enterprise is not perfect. but it is - to my bourgeoise thinking - different from a system where you get dragged out of your house and raped. Or where you all live in terrified silence.

 

But then I've been described as 'vaudevillian'.

[samm]

mes amis

fixed It's the last day of uni today so I gotta hang out the scholar for the last time in ... three days :/ Scnr

[Gorgon]

Could just as easily be Mon Ami, as long as concord is maintained.

[alanschu]

Well I'm glad I'm not the only person that doesn't classify socialist as evil.

 

 

When I wiki'd Socialist, I got socialism, which of course talks about things such as Britain's labour party, and much of Scandinavia. Hmmmm. Oddly, this ends up meshing perfectly with what I learned in High School as well as my Political Science classes in University.

 

Or are we using the Nazi definition of Socialist here, despite the fact that the National Socialist party had pretty much nothing to do with Socialism, being fascist instead. I've also never called Communist States socalist states either, because I've always been taught that they tended to be, well, Communist states rather that Socialist states.

 

Sounds like Chavez is moving towards a Communist state (given the allegations of dictatorship). Of course I mean Communist state in practice, not in theory, in which there is no leader of a state and hence a dictatorship is impossible!

 

 

 

EDIT: But this certainly does clear up why I've been called Socialist as an insult before.... HAHA. Never really took it as one.

Edited May 29, 2009 by alanschu

[Gorgon]

I think what is meant by the comparison is that they called themselves national socialists, and instigated a wide range of public building programmes to get people in jobs. That's the classical Keynesian theory, before there was any such thing of course, and with the understanding that it was mostly a ruse to prepare the country for conquest.

[taks]

ya'll get too hung up on semantic differences. in the end, it's all statism.

 

by themselves, systems cannot be evil (concepts cannot commit evil acts and thus, cannot be evil in and of themselves). it is the implementation by people that is inherently evil if only because people are forced to do the bidding of others, i.e., people become slaves under statist systems.

 

taks

[Gorgon]

So I take it you exclude democracies from the category of statism seeing as how the people can reject their leaders and their policies. The definition itself appears to me to be soaked in ideology. What tax rate and redistribution level constitutes slavery ?

 

Also calling Capitalism a political system is a secondary meaning, the first is always the Capitalist market system, this often leads to further confusion when people forget to mention the difference.

Edited May 29, 2009 by Gorgon

[taks]

So I take it you exclude democracies from the category of statism seeing as how the people can reject their leaders and their policies.

wow, what a strawman. you're at best disingenuous, at worst... well, we all know. yes, btw, pure democracies are statist. if you had bothered to read the link you would have seen them included.

 

The definition itself appears to me to be soaked in ideology.

no, just you are.

 

What tax rate and redistribution level constitutes slavery ?

any on income, since there is no choice.

 

Also calling Capitalism a political system is a secondary meaning, the first is always the Capitalist market system,

only to myopics such as you that don't truly understand what the word capitalism means. it is a socio-economic system, which includes not only the functions of government, but the free-market economy, and the concept of individual rights. i should add, no statist system includes any concept for individual rights (only "privileges" granted by the state).

 

this often leads to further confusion when people forget to mention the difference.

not to anyone that rationally thinks about such things.

 

taks

Edited May 29, 2009 by taks

[Enoch]

The definition itself appears to me to be soaked in ideology.

On a site called "capitalism.org"??! I'm shocked!

 

(Note: The better question to ask is what kind of government isn't statist by taks' definition, as the whole idea of civilization involves the decision by our ancestors to subject some individual freedoms and some of the collective group's resources to control by authority figures so that, on the whole, the welfare of the clan/tribe/village/city/nation is improved.)